224 



CONGRESS. (APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES.) 



tion. We shrink from an apportionment that 

 would reduce the power of our respective States 

 in this hall and in the electoral college, yet some 

 time or other this will be inevitable. 



" I am in favor of an ample number of mem- 

 bers to represent in Congress every possible in- 

 terest of the people of the several States of the 

 Union. I wish to have every State fully repre- 

 sented so that no interest shall be left without a 

 voice on this floor. But in my humble judg- 

 ment that end is already reached and more ; the 

 333 members now authorized to be elected to 

 Congress do represent every conceivable interest 

 of the American people. Even with the present 

 number it is said that the House is no longer a 

 deliberative body. If it is not, we have no wise 

 or intelligent legislation. 



" What, sir, are the evils of an excessive num- 

 ber of Representatives, a House composed of 

 members beyond a reasonable number ? What 

 are the evils attending a legislative body too 

 large for intelligent deliberation? 



" In the first place, it diminishes the personal 

 responsibility of members. In fact, it dwarfs 

 the individual member, no matter how great 

 and intelligent the constituency he represents. 

 As a result of diminished responsibility, with 

 increased numbers, the number of efficient mem- 

 bers and the legislative power and intelligence 

 of the House are absolutely diminished. I take 

 up the record of yesterday's proceedings, the 

 last ' Congressional Record ' issued, and I refer 

 to the vote upon two important bills, the only 

 measures voted upon yesterday by yeas and nays. 

 In one case the affirmative vote was 91, the neg- 

 ative vote 105, those not voting 135, and this bill 

 involved a probable expenditure of $15,000,000 ; 

 so that even with a House of 332 members the 

 absentees actually exceeded the number voting 

 for or against the proposition. 



"In the other case, on a bill involving very 

 considerable public interests, the affirmative vote 

 was 73, the negative vote 80, while the absensees 

 numbered 169, the absentees actually exceeding 

 in number both the affirmative and negative 

 votes. This is a fair sample of the condition of 

 our legislation with a membership of 332. What 

 will it be when you add 24 to that number? 

 What will it be in the next decade ? Such ab- 

 senteeism would be impossible with the number 

 fairly responsible. I have heard the example of 

 the British House of Commons repeatedly quoted 

 as an argument in favor of enlarged representa- 

 tion on this floor. That example is constantly 

 quoted, and we are told that our House of Repre- 

 sentatives is framed on the British model. There 

 are 670 members of the British House of Com- 

 mons, and I deny that there is any analogy in 

 fact between our House of Representatives and 

 the British House of Commons. 



" But what is the result of so large a House ? 

 A quorum is 40 ; so that in a legislative body 

 composed of 670 members a larger number 

 that can by any human possibility deliberate in 

 legislation 40 members constitute the legislative 

 assembly and can enact laws. Is this much 'of 

 an argument for following the British example 

 in legislation? That is a result and perhaps 

 one of the inevitable results of excessively large 

 legislative bodies. The power in all such bodies 

 is finally vested in a few great committees and 



the Speaker of the House. Does not the present 

 state of the rules in this House and the power of 

 the Speaker and a few chairmen admonish gen- 

 tlemen of the result and peril of excessive num- 

 bers ? There is, however, another consideration 

 which I want to mention very briefly, and which 

 to my mind is of still greater importance than 

 any other that can be urged. 



" By the greatly increased number of members 

 of Congress you not only diminish individual 

 responsibility, create absenteeism, and render 

 deliberation and prudent and intelligent legis- 

 lation impossible, but the tendency of great 

 Houses of Congress (Senate and House) is to 

 dwarf the locaHegislatures of the several States. 

 Such I think is' the inevitable tendency at least 

 in its effect on the public mind, when, in fact, 

 in the nature of things, the State Legislatures 

 dealing in all that concerns the local and do- 

 mestic affairs of our people, in all their wide- 

 spread and countless forms, do, except as to a 

 few great and important matters of national con- 

 cern, affect the welfare of our people more than 

 the proceedings of Congress." 



The following table was given in illustration 

 of the apportionment : 



The bill passed the House on Dec. 17, 1S90, by 

 a vote of 187 yeas to 82 nays not voting, 63. 



